Sample Publications
Below is a sampling of published article titles with journal citations, followed by a brief summary of each article. At the bottom of this page is a link to an ISBA page listing all my published articles, save the May 2009 article published in the Trial Journal of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association.
Jurisdiction of Illinois courts based on Internet content without Zippo
Jul 1, 2012 Vol. 58 No. 1 Trial Briefs of the Ill. St. Bar Ass'n
The Seventh Circuit, unique from other jurisdictions, never adopted the Zippo "sliding scale" test for personal jurisdiction in Internet cases, and its reliance on the more traditional "effects" test of Calder and Keeton--which the rest of the nation is now reverting to--has yielded an intriguing and at times unpredictable body of jurisprudence in this area. In particular, a business enterprise which carries a legal disclaimer on its site as to a particular state may find it has constructively targeted every other jurisdiction in so doing. (Coauthored with George S. Bellas)
Jablonski v. Ford: Is the Illinois Supreme Court crafting a new approach to duty analysis and proof in negligent-product-design cases?
Apr 1, 2012 Vol. 42 No. 4 Trial Briefs Newsl. of the Ill. St. Bar Ass'n
A gradual shift in how Illinois courts are deciding cases involving negligent-product-design claims appears to be evolving following the Illinois Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Jablonski et al. v. Ford Motor Co., 2011 IL 110096 (Ill. 2011). Reversing a $43 million jury verdict for the plaintiffs, the court held in an opinion authored by Justice Theis that under a negligent-product-design claim the “risk-utility” test with a higher burden of proof controlled, which the plaintiffs failed to meet. The ruling seems on its surface to dispense with the more intuitive and less rigorous “consumer expectation” test, which earlier cases have folded into the risk-utility test.
In practice, however, it looks as if the Illinois Supreme Court applied language out of its 2008 Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co. decision in which the court warned that a plaintiff who fails to rebut evidence introduced by the defendant proper to the risk-utility analysis runs the risk of an adverse ruling. (Coauthored with George S. Bellas)
Here is the link for the above-cited article, Jablonski v. Ford (2011):
https://www.isba.org/sections/bench/newsletter/2012/04/jablonskivfordistheillinoissupremec
Internet evidence: How to authenticate evidence from the Internet under the new
Illinois Rules of Evidence
May 1, 2011 Vol. 56 No. 6 Trial Briefs Newsl. of the Ill. State Bar Ass'n
The new Illinois Rules of Evidence which went into effect January 1, 2011, codified for the first time ever, have followed the federal rules’ lead in providing straightforward means for the authentication of evidence taken from the Internet for admissibility. Federal case law and a nascent body of Illinois rulings point the way for authenticating Internet evidence for anything from using Google Maps for judicial notice to proving the screen identity of a chat room participant or establishing that a particular web page of a company’s marketing department targeted Illinois residents five years ago. This article highlights the relative simplicity of the procedures and the novel applications under the Rules to this point. (Coauthored with George S. Bellas)
Fourth District discredits 30-year “legitimate-business-interest” test and ignores own ruling for restrictive covenants
Jan 2010 Vol. 55 No. 4 Trial Briefs Newsl. of the Ill. State Bar Ass'n
Creating a district split, the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Steigmann, Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Ehlers, 394 Ill.App.3d 421 (4th Dist. 2009), disregarded its own precedent and declared the “legitimate-business-interest” test “no longer valid, if it ever was.” After citing the stare decisis doctrine for the necessity of a trial court to follow binding precedence from its own appellate court, the Ehlers court then affirmed the trial court for failing to do just that. The Ehlers court decreed the decades-old test invalid, chiefly on the rationale that the Illinois Supreme Court had never adopted the test. Remarkably, the court cites a seminal 1972 Illinois Supreme Court case that essentially relied on the test. (Coauthored with George S. Bellas)
Taking a Page out of the Defense Bar's Playbook: Sharing Provisions in Protective Orders
May 1, 2009 Vol. 11 No. 2 Trial J. of the Ill. Trial Law. Ass'n, 8-17
Protective orders were created to be used as a shield to protect defendants' actual trade secrets or other protectable confidential commercial information, not as a sword to cut off the actual and potential plaintiff from the fact-finding field that ensures the aims of the discovery process. This article examines the stonewalling strategies employed by defendants in products liability litigation and the necessity of including sharing provisions in protective orders if they cannot be avoided. (Coauthored with George S. Bellas)
All my published articles can be found with brief descriptions of each on the following Illinois State Bar Association page:
https://www.isba.org/publications/sectionnewsletters/authors/andesapatrick